W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > March to April 2001

Re: Signing Document and PICS

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 00:43:03 -0500
To: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@math.berkeley.edu>, <www-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6F56495.89F7%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Russell O'Connor <roconnor@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> The question was to name one thing worse about XHTML 1.0 than HTML 4.0.
> The answer to that is that more illegal documents are valid in
> XHTML than in HTML 4.0.  There is no disputing this.

Err, XHTML clearly states:

<q cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#prohibitions">
    Appendix B. Element Prohibitions

    This appendix is normative.

    The following elements have prohibitions on which elements they can
    contain (see Section 4.9). This prohibition applies to all depths of
    nesting, i.e. it contains all the descendant elements.

        cannot contain other a elements.

> I'm far more interested in certifying documents
> are made by me than debating the merits of XHTML.

Me too.

> So, PICS can be inserted into HTTP headers, and DSIG labels can be added.  The
> problem with PICS is its rating metadata seems to have limited expressibility.
> RDF seems to fix this.  It would be nice if there were a standard way of
> putting RDF in HTTP headers, and create secure digital signatures. Does RDF
> have equivalents to these properties that PICS have?

Well, as I've already shown it can be embedded in HTML using HTML LINK. If
you want to do it in HTTP, one convention is to use content negotiation, and
send the set of RDF metadata to systems that can accept it. This practice is
documented in the W3C Note:


[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2001 01:43:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 20 January 2020 16:08:25 UTC